Russia to build floating Arctic nuclear stations

Russia to build floating Arctic nuclear stations

www.guardian.co.uk

Russia is planning a fleet of floating and submersible nuclear power stations to exploit Arctic oil and gas reserves, causing widespread alarm among environmentalists.

A prototype floating nuclear power station being constructed at the SevMash shipyard in Severodvinsk is due to be completed next year. Agreement to build a further four was reached between the Russian state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, and the northern Siberian republic of Yakutiya in February.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Any country hoping to lay claim to a thawing Arctic better get there buts into gear . It would seem that Russia wont be caught sitting on the side lines . Russia has been making big moves to become an oil producing power house , someone should tell them that oil is so 90's

It will be interesting to see just how the world will react to this move , not to mention the environmental community

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think that many people have written off the Russians after the Cold War..

Apparently a Bad Move...

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


How right you are and while the world is preoccupied with NK , Iran and the financial mess
Russia simply marches along .

I wonder what the US will have to say about this..???

Canada has vowed that they will not be bullied or back down in the face of growing Russian presence in the Arctic. Russia denies that they have any plans for an outlandish power grab.

www.borderfirereport.net...

The article pretty much states that with the arctic thawing, there will be more countries interested in getting at the resources that used to be trapped beneath the ice. Canada is pretty much saying get the f--- out.

why not have a joint operation, and divide the amount of oil depending on how many people are in each country.

Oh I'm sure the current administration will open up two-way discussions on the matter. They've worked so well with Iran, NK, and Cuba. Maybe we'll even give them some "Climate Change" DVD's. Hopefully they will check the country of use first this time.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Maybe we'll even give them some "Climate Change" DVD's. Hopefully they will check the country of use first this time.

...yeah....we should bomb them instead!

Despite all your ignorant mocking of the current administration, atleast talking actually accomplishes something and doesn't cost additional money for no reason.

Yes, the world wrote off Russia after the cold war. And for good reason.

Russia is "slums" equivalent of the United States in the sense that they are quick to go to war, and very few people want to piss them off....they just lack the economical infrastructure to back it all up.

That's why the US fears it so.

And who will pay for and clean up with there is a leak from one of these bases? I mean the russians do not have the best track record when it comes to nuclear and preventing leaks.

I started a thread about this four years ago.

Here:
Chernobyl at Sea? Russia Builds Floating Nuclear Plant

Most likely everyone else. Or us. Or no one.


I have a feeling any of those are plausible.

Canada cant really fight a war get real. They have a good beach front there but they cant fend the Russians off if Russia wants it. Seriously lol I love Canada but they arent fighters.

reply to post by Memysabu


Your absolutely right, so then Canada will ask for US support,and we will likely help because it is in our hemisphere, and greatly affects our interests.

reply to post by MR BOB


Yeah that would work out great... for all of the countries that want in on land that is already a part of Canada. Not only would they get to ravage OUR natural resources, but they would also get an enormous percentage of any harvested resources, because we don't overpopulate and cram people into areas far too small to support the population.

You do realize that part of the "Arctic" is Russian recognized territory (land and territorial waters) right - and I am not even talking about the disputed claims. These nuclear mobile power stations will be used primarily along Russia's northern coast, which is in fact part of the Arctic, to provide power to scientific research centers and gas/oil/resources infrastructure.


And for those who didn't know, Russia already had operational nuclear power sources in the Arctic region for decades - Arktika class nuclear icebreakers (largest in the world) with reactors on board.


The only main issue with this is of course safety - as far as accidents and radiation leaks are concerned. The Arktika class icebreakers did in fact have a number of minor radiation accident in the 80's, but the technology has considerably improved since then. Today Russia has some of the most advanced nuclear power sources for vessels (as long as they are new and not aged and rusting).

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maloy]

Originally posted by willis7737

Canada has vowed that they will not be bullied or back down in the face of growing Russian presence in the Arctic. Russia denies that they have any plans for an outlandish power grab.

www.borderfirereport.net...

The article pretty much states that with the arctic thawing, there will be more countries interested in getting at the resources that used to be trapped beneath the ice. Canada is pretty much saying get the f--- out.

The key phrase here is "Canada is saying.." - and doing nothing as usual. Canada's only two air defense bases are located thousands of kilometers south of the arctic and large areas of the Canadian arctic islands are north of the NORAD air identification zone, meaning the Russians have free access to a large part of "Canadian" arctic airspace.

The Canadian government is very good at jumping around with excitement like anyone cares what they say. But they really won't spend anything to defend their territory. The arctic is defended with Inuit (that is the Canadian equivalent for Alaskan Eskimo) on snowmobiles.

Canada has virtually zero military presence in its vast northern lands. It has to hope that the US will step in if Russia or China or Korea decide to occupy the arctic. And a fair number of Canadians would probably prefer to see the Russians or Chinese occupy the north than the US.

Chernobyl anyone?

Okay, I get the argument FOR nuclear energy but think of taking the reactors to sea as idiotic.

Nothing is perfect, and nothing is beyond the realm of accidents.

Nuclear leaks on LAND is bad enough, but at sea?

We are a self defeating species so I guess this should be no big surprise (as it has been going on for at least 4 years), but still, who hires the people that come up with these ideas?

Originally posted by Animal
Okay, I get the argument FOR nuclear energy but think of taking the reactors to sea as idiotic.

Russia, US and a number of other countries have operated vessels under nuclear power for half a century now. Technology and safety have advanced considerably now. Russia already has dozens of ships operation with nuclear powerplants in the Arctic alone, so this won't really change things a great deal.

Plus there isn't really a viable alternative to meeting the energy needs of the Russian far North. Electrical infrastructure is not developed and won't stand up to the cold climate. Meanwhile energy needs are growing as new Russian oil/gas wells are being built.



Fact is it is the aging nuclear power plants we have to worry about, and their proper disposal. The new reactors are far safer than what is already operating right now.

Concerns voiced by Scandinavians and Canada aren't really about the threat of radiation. It is political in nature, and deals with disputed claims to the Arctic seabed.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by maloy]

reply to post by maloy


I completely understand what you are saying mate, and I 'generally' agree with you. However, nothing is perfect. A nuclear disaster at sea would be a nightmare.

I guess it simply comes down to my personal belief that nuclear energy is fundamentally a bad idea. No energy source is perfect, but nuclear poses a host of threats to LIFE in general that leads me to believe it is simply an 'insane' energy source.

And this is 'in general' taking it to sea (your right nuclear powered navy has been around for a long time) just seems like an even bigger gamble to me.